Collaborative computer aided test plan generation

ABSTRACT

Arrangements described herein relate to generation of test plans. A list of test case selection criteria can be presented to each of a plurality of stakeholders. At least one user input is received from each of the plurality of stakeholders selecting at least one test case selection criterion from the list of test case selection criteria and, for each selected test case selection criterion, assigning a criterion priority. Test cases, which correspond to the selected test case selection criteria, can be automatically selected to include in a candidate test plan. A candidate priority can be automatically assigned to each test case selected to be included in the candidate test plan. The processor selects the test cases to include in the candidate test plan and assigns the candidate priorities to the selected test cases based on processing the criterion priorities assigned to the selected test case selection criteria by the stakeholders.

BACKGROUND

Arrangements described herein relate to generation of test plans.

A test plan is an artifact that contains a collection of test casesconfigured to test a particular type of application and/or serviceexecuting in a data processing system. Oftentimes the test cases aregrouped into themes, which define the high-level aspects for the testplan and guide the test case selection criteria. The ultimate goal of atest plan is to identify the best set of test cases to execute such thatmotivating themes are covered with the available test resources.

SUMMARY

A method includes presenting to each of a plurality of stakeholders alist of test case selection criteria. At least one user input can bereceived from each of the plurality of stakeholders selecting at leastone test case selection criterion from the list of test case selectioncriteria and, for each selected test case selection criterion, assigninga criterion priority. Test cases, which correspond to the selected testcase selection criteria, can be automatically selected, using aprocessor, to include in a candidate test plan. Further, a candidatepriority can be automatically assigned, using the processor, to eachtest case selected to be included in the candidate test plan. Theprocessor selects the test cases to include in the candidate test planand assigns the candidate priorities to the selected test cases based onprocessing the criterion priorities assigned to the selected test caseselection criteria by the stakeholders.

A system includes a processor programmed to initiate executableoperations. The executable operations include presenting to each of aplurality of stakeholders a list of test case selection criteria. Atleast one user input can be received from each of the plurality ofstakeholders selecting at least one test case selection criterion fromthe list of test case selection criteria and, for each selected testcase selection criterion, assigning a criterion priority. Test cases,which correspond to the selected test case selection criteria, can beautomatically selected to include in a candidate test plan. Further, acandidate priority can be automatically assigned to each test caseselected to be included in the candidate test plan. The test cases areselected to include in the candidate test plan and the candidatepriorities are assigned to the selected test cases based on processingthe criterion priorities assigned to the selected test case selectioncriteria by the stakeholders.

A computer program includes a computer readable storage medium havingprogram code stored thereon. The program code is executable by aprocessor to perform a method. The method includes presenting, by theprocessor, to each of a plurality of stakeholders a list of test caseselection criteria. At least one user input can be received, by theprocessor, from each of the plurality of stakeholders selecting at leastone test case selection criterion from the list of test case selectioncriteria and, for each selected test case selection criterion, assigninga criterion priority. Test cases, which correspond to the selected testcase selection criteria, can be automatically selected, by theprocessor, to include in a candidate test plan. Further, a candidatepriority can be automatically assigned, by the processor, to each testcase selected to be included in the candidate test plan. The processorselects the test cases to include in the candidate test plan and assignsthe candidate priorities to the selected test cases based on processingthe criterion priorities assigned to the selected test case selectioncriteria by the stakeholders.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a computingenvironment.

FIG. 2 depicts an example of a criteria prioritization specificationpresented via a user interface.

FIG. 3 depicts an example of a prioritized list of criteria presentedvia a user interface.

FIG. 4 depicts an example of a test plan editor presented via a userinterface.

FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating example architecture for a dataprocessing system.

FIG. 6 is a flow chart illustrating an example of a method of generatinga test plan.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

While the disclosure concludes with claims defining novel features, itis believed that the various features described herein will be betterunderstood from a consideration of the description in conjunction withthe drawings. The process(es), machine(s), manufacture(s) and anyvariations thereof described within this disclosure are provided forpurposes of illustration. Any specific structural and functional detailsdescribed are not to be interpreted as limiting, but merely as a basisfor the claims and as a representative basis for teaching one skilled inthe art to variously employ the features described in virtually anyappropriately detailed structure. Further, the terms and phrases usedwithin this disclosure are not intended to be limiting, but rather toprovide an understandable description of the features described.

This disclosure relates to the generation of test plans and, moreparticularly, to a collaboration environment in which stakeholders in atest plan provide user inputs regarding prioritization of test caseselection criteria the stakeholders believe are important to the testplan. Based on the user inputs, test cases are automatically selected tobe included in a candidate test plan and candidate priorities areautomatically assigned to the test cases using suitable algorithmsexecuted by a processor. In the collaboration environment stakeholdersalso can modify and/or edit freeform text associated with the candidatetest plan.

Several definitions that apply throughout this document now will bepresented.

As defined herein, the term “test case” means a set if conditions and/orvariables configured to be input to a system to determine whether thesystem is functioning properly. In this regard, a system can be anapplication or other software, a device or group of devices, or anyother system that may process a set of conditions and/or variables.

As defined herein, the term “test plan” means an artifact that containsa collection of test cases. In one arrangement, the test cases can begrouped into themes, and free-form document sections in the test plancan provide context for these themes. The themes can be driven from anyApplication Lifecycle Management (ALM) domain. For example, arequirements management motivated theme can include all new featuresdelivered at a particular milestone, and a quality management motivatedtheme can include all high-severity regressions and clustered deploymenttest cases.

As defined herein, the term “test case selection criterion” means acriterion for selecting test cases for a test plan.

As defined herein, the term “test case selection criteria” meanscriteria for selecting test cases for a test plan.

As defined herein, the term “criterion priority” means a priorityassigned to a test case selection criterion by a stakeholder thatindicates a relative importance of the test case selection criterion, asperceived by the stakeholder, to a test plan.

As defined herein, the term “collaborative priority” means a priorityautomatically assigned to a test case selection criterion based on atleast one criterion priority assigned to the test case selectioncriterion by at least one stakeholder.

As defined herein, the term “candidate priority” means a priorityassigned to a test case that indicates a relative importance, asautomatically determined, of the test case to a test plan.

As defined herein, the term “free-form content” means unstructured datasuch as text, tables, images and files.

As defined herein, the term “theme” means a plurality of test cases thatare grouped together based on a context that is common to the testcases. The context can be, for example, a particular test case selectioncriterion with which each of the test cases are associated. A particulartest case can be included in one or more themes.

As defined herein, the term “story” means a requirement specified by auser for a milestone or iteration of an application or system.

As defined herein, the term “stakeholder” means a person (i.e., a humanbeing) having an interest in the execution of a test plan.

As defined herein, the term “test lead person” means a stakeholder whois assigned a lead role on generating a test plan.

As defined herein, the term “processor” means at least one hardwarecircuit (e.g., an integrated circuit) configured to carry outinstructions contained in program code. Examples of a processor include,but are not limited to, a central processing unit (CPU), an arrayprocessor, a vector processor, a digital signal processor (DSP), afield-programmable gate array (FPGA), an application specific integratedcircuit (ASIC) and a controller.

As defined herein, the term “automatically” means without userintervention.

As defined herein, the term “user input” means an input by a person(i.e., a human being) into a processing system via a user interface.

As used herein, the term “real time” means a level of processingresponsiveness that a user or system senses as sufficiently immediatefor a particular process or determination to be made, or that enablesthe processor to keep up with some external process.

FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a computingenvironment 100. The computing environment 100 can include one or moreservers 110 and a plurality of client devices 120, 122, 124, 126communicatively linked via a communication network 130. A server 110 isimplemented as a processing system including at least one processor andmemory. Each client device 120-126 also is implemented as a processingsystem including at least one processor and memory. Examples of theclient devices include, but are not limited to, workstations, desktopcomputers, mobile computers (e.g., laptop computers, notebook computers,netbook computers, tablet computers, etc.), smart phones, personaldigital assistants, and the like.

The communication network 130 is the medium used to providecommunications links between the various server(s) 100 and clientdevices 120-126 connected together within the computing environment 100.The communication network 130 may include connections, such as wire,wireless communication links, or fiber optic cables. The communicationnetwork 130 can be implemented as, or include, any of a variety ofdifferent communication technologies such as a wide area network (WAN),a local area network (LAN), a wireless network, a mobile network, aVirtual Private Network (VPN), the Internet, the Public SwitchedTelephone Network (PSTN), or the like.

The server(s) 110 can include a requirements management (RM) application140, a quality management (QM) application 142 and a change management(CM) application 144, each of which are known to those skilled in theart. In this regard, the RM application 140, QM application 142 and CMapplication 144 can be executed on the same server 110 or executed ondifferent servers 110. The RM application 140, QM application 142 and CMapplication 144 each can store respective data to one or more suitabledatabases.

The server(s) 110 also can include an application life cycle management(ALM) framework 146 configured to link data from the RM application 140,QM application 142 and CM application 144. The server(s) 110 further caninclude a unified link datastore (ULD) 148 that interfaces with the ALMframework 146 to retrieve data from the RM application 140, QMapplication 142 and CM application 144, as well as any otherapplications that may be pertinent to generating test plans, and createan index of the data in a suitable database so that the data can beeasily queried. The indexed data, for example, can include importantartifacts from all applications 140-144 linked by the ALM framework 146.Accordingly, the ULD 148 can allow queries to be run across the multipleapplications 140-144.

The server(s) 110 also can include a collaborative test plan generationapplication (hereinafter “collaborative application”) 150. Thecollaborative application 150 can include a variety of user interfaceviews and menus presented to stakeholders via the client devices 120-126to facilitate stakeholder collaboration on generating test plans, aswill be described in further detail. In this regard, each of the clientdevices 120-126 can include a respective user interface 160, 162, 164,166 via which the user interface views and menus are presented. The userinterfaces 160-166 can be implemented as web browsers or otherclient-side applications suitable configured to present the userinterface views and menus and receive user inputs from the stakeholders.

In operation, via the user interface 160 of the client device 120, astakeholder, such as test lead person, can initiate a collaborative testplan request and specify a list of stakeholders who are invited tocollaborate in generating the test plan for testing a particular system,such as an application or other software, a device or group of devices,or any other system that may be tasked with processing test cases inaccordance with a test plan to confirm the system is properlyfunctioning. The test lead person also can generate a criteria list 170containing criteria potentially relevant to the test plan, which can becommunicated from the client device 120 to the collaborative application150.

In addition, the test lead person can pre-configure queries to selecttest cases corresponding to criteria included in the criteria list 170.Such queries can be executed to select test cases for a candidate testplan, for example by interfacing with the ULD 148 to identify theappropriate test cases and retrieve the test cases from the RM, QM andCM applications, as well as any other suitable applications, as will bedescribed. In one arrangement, the queries can be configured to querytest cases associated with themes corresponding to the criteria. In thisregard, the test case selection criteria can be specific to the ALMframework 146. Accordingly, the ALM framework 146 and ULD 148 can beleveraged to quickly map the test case selection criteria to the testcase queries. The test lead person also can specify a maximum number oftest cases to be included in the candidate test plan and/or a maximumnumber of test cases to be selected to satisfy each particular test caseselection criterion.

Responsive to the test lead person initiating the collaborative testplan request, the collaborative application 150 can invite each of thespecified stakeholders to participate in generating the test plan. Forexample, the collaborative application 150 can communicate messages(e.g., emails, text messages or the like) to the specified stakeholdersthat direct the stakeholders to a criteria prioritization specification200 (FIG. 2) that is generated by the collaborative application 150based on the criteria list 170. The invitations can include, forexample, hyperlinks or uniform resource identifiers (URIs) (e.g.,uniform resource locators (URLs)) to the criteria prioritizationspecification 200. In one arrangement, each invited stakeholder can beprovided an option to accept or decline the invitation.

FIG. 2 depicts an example of the criteria prioritization specification200, which may be presented to the stakeholders via the respective userinterfaces 162-166. The criteria prioritization specification 200 canprovide a listing of each test case selection criterion 210 added to thecriteria list 170 (FIG. 1) by the test lead person or proposed by one ormore stakeholders. Further, the criteria prioritization specification200 can include, for each test case selection criterion 210 associatedwith one or more subcategories of criteria 220, a respective selectablecontrol 230 (e.g., an icon, button or the like) that, when selected,shows the criteria 220 in the subcategories associated with therespective criteria 210. The criteria prioritization specification 200also can include for each test case selection criterion 210, 220 apriority control 240 via which a stakeholder can select the test caseselection criterion 210, 220 if the stakeholder believes the test caseselection criterion 210, 220 is pertinent to a candidate test plan andassign a criterion priority to the selected test case selectioncriterion 210, 220. In this regard, only test case selection criteria210, 220 which are assigned a criterion priority need be deemed to havebeen selected by the stakeholder. Once the stakeholder has finishedselecting one or more test case selection criteria 210, 220 by assigningcriterion priorities to the test case selection criteria 210, 220, thestakeholder can select a control 250 to accept theselections/priorities. The stakeholder also may select a control 260 tocancel the test case selection criteria 210, 220 selection and priorityassignment.

Responsive to the stakeholder selecting to accept the test caseselection criteria/priority selections (e.g., by selecting the control250), a prioritized list 300 of the test case selection criteria 210,220 selected by the stakeholder can be presented to the stake holder viaa respective user interface 162-166, for example as presented in theprioritized list 300 of criteria in depicted FIG. 3. The prioritizedlist 300 can include each of the test case selection criteria 310selected by the stakeholder and the respective criterion priorities 320assigned to the selected test case selection criteria 310 by thestakeholder. In this regard, the selected test case selection criteria320 can be presented in the prioritized list 300 in an ordercorresponding to the assigned criterion priorities 320. The stakeholdercan select a control 330 to accept the prioritized list 300, or select acontrol 340 to edit the prioritized list, in which case the criteriaprioritization specification 200 of FIG. 2 can again be presented to thestakeholder to allow the user to change the criteria selections and/orpriorities.

Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, when a stakeholder using the client device122 accepts the prioritized list 300 of criteria of FIG. 3, thecriteria/priorities 182 selected by the stakeholder can be communicatedto the collaborative application 150. Similarly, when a stakeholderusing the client device 124 accepts a respective prioritized list, thecriteria/priorities 184 selected by the stakeholder can be communicatedto the collaborative application 150, and when a stakeholder using theclient device 126 accepts a respective prioritized list, thecriteria/priorities 186 selected by the stakeholder can be communicatedto the collaborative application 150. Optionally, the stakeholder who isthe test lead person also can select criteria/priorities and communicatethem to the collaborative application 150.

Responsive to the collaborative application 150 receiving all, orminimum number, of the criteria/priorities 182-186 selected by thestakeholders, the collaborative application 150 can process the selectedcriteria/priorities 182-186 to automatically create a candidate testplan 190. In illustration, the collaborative application 150 can executea prioritization algorithm that assigns a collaborative priority to eachof the selected test case selection criteria based on the criterionpriorities assigned to the selected criteria by the stakeholders. Inillustration, the prioritization algorithm can identify each test caseselection criterion selected by at least one stakeholder and, for eachtest case selection criterion, average the priorities assigned to thetest case selection criterion by the stakeholders to determine thecollaborative priority to be assigned to that test case selectioncriterion. For each stakeholder that did not select a particular testcase selection criterion which was selected by at least one otherstakeholder, a very low priority can be assigned to the test caseselection criterion on behalf of the stakeholder who did not select thetest case selection criterion. This can facilitate averaging of thestakeholder assigned criterion priorities to arrive at the collaborativepriority. For example, a priority of 50, 100 or 1000 can be assigned tothe test case selection criterion on behalf of each of the stakeholdersthat did not choose the test case selection criterion.

The collaborative application 150 can rank the test case selectioncriteria to correspond to the collaborative priorities and select one ormore of the test case selection criteria 210, 220 having the highestcollaborative priorities for inclusion in the candidate test plan 190.For the test case selection criterion 210, 220 having the highestcollaborative priority (e.g., lowest average priority number), thecollaborative application 150 can automatically execute a querycorresponding to that test case selection criterion 210, 220 to selecttest cases to include in the candidate test plan. As noted, such querycan interface with the ULD 148 to select test cases from the RMapplication 140, the QM application 142, the CM application 144 and/orany other application that may include relevant test cases. For the testcase selection criterion 210, 220 having the next highest collaborativepriority, the collaborative application 150 can automatically execute aquery corresponding to that test case selection criterion to select testcases to include in the candidate test plan, and so on. The process cancontinue until the collaborative application 150 has selected themaximum number of test cases to be included in the candidate test plan.If the maximum number of test cases is not been reached, the process cancontinue until test cases for all test case selection criteria 210, 220identified by the stakeholders have been selected. In one arrangement,the number of test cases selected for each test case selection criterion210, 220 can be limited to a maximum number, for example a maximumnumber of test cases specified by the test lead person.

The collaborative application 150 also can assign candidate prioritiesto the selected test cases based on a suitable algorithm. Inillustration, the collaborative application 150 can, for each selectedtest case, identify which test case selection criterion the test case isassociated and identify the collaborative priority assigned to the testcase selection criterion. Test cases associated with a test caseselection criterion having a high collaborative priority can be assignedhigh candidate priorities, while test cases associated with a test caseselection criterion having a low collaborative priority can be assignedlow candidate priorities. Moreover, if a test case is associated with aplurality of test case selection criterion, such test case can beassigned a candidate priority that is at least as high as thecollaborative priority assigned to the highest priority test caseselection criterion with which the test case is associated. Thealgorithm that assigns the candidate priorities to test cases also canprocess other information when assigning the candidate priorities. Forexample, the algorithm can process information related to how often testcases are used in test plans, metadata assigned to the test cases, etc.

Responsive to the test cases being selected and candidate prioritiesbeing assigned to the selected test cases, the collaborative application150 can generate the candidate test plan 190, which can include theselected test cases with the assigned candidate priorities. Thecollaborative application 150 also can include in the candidate testplan 190 free-form content associated with the test case selectioncriteria for which the test cases are selected. One example of thefree-form content is a milestone requirement, also known as a story,associated with a milestone criterion. A milestone requirement is arequirement specified by a stakeholder for a milestone or iteration of asystem. Other free-from content can relate to features, use cases, notesrelated to a criterion, notes related to a test case, etc. The free-formcontent can facilitate review of the candidate test plan 190 by thestakeholders.

FIG. 4 depicts an example of a test plan editor 400, which can bepresented by the collaborative application 150 to the test lead personand other stakeholders via respective user interfaces 160-166 to presentthe candidate test plan 190 (FIG. 1). Referring FIGS. 1 and 4, the testplan editor 400 can present each of the test case selection criterion410, 412 selected for the candidate test plan 190 and, for each selectedcriterion 410, 412, respective test cases 420, 422 selected for thecandidate test plan 190. The selected test case selection criteria 410,412 can be presented in the test plan editor 400 in an ordercorresponding to the collaborative priorities assigned to the test caseselection criteria 410, 412. Further, the selected test cases 420, 422can be presented with the respective test case selection criteria 410,412 to which the respective test cases 420, 422 correspond. Inillustration, under each selected test case selection criterion 410,412, the respective test cases 420, 422 for that test case selectioncriterion 410, 412 can be presented in a respective table thatidentifies the respective test cases 420, 422 using a suitableidentifier 430, the candidate priority 432 assigned to each respectivetest case 420, 422, a requirement 434 each respective test case 420, 422is configured to test and/or a defect 436 for which each respective testcase 420, 422 is configured to test.

Further, the test plan editor 400 can present with the respective testcase selection criteria 410, 412 free-form content 440, 442. Inillustration, under each selected test case selection criterion 410,412, the respective free-form content 440, 442 for that test caseselection criterion 410, 412 can be presented. Optionally, when astakeholder selects a particular test case 420, 422, the free-formcontent 440, 442 that is presented in the test plan editor 400 can bechanged to free-form content associated with the particular test case420, 422. As noted, the free-form content 440, 442 can be free-formcontent that pre-exists or free-form content that is generated by thecollaborative application 150 based on metadata associated with the testcase selection criteria 410, 412 and/or test cases 420, 422.

Via the test plan editor 400, the test lead person and/or otherstakeholders can revise the candidate test plan 190. In one arrangement,permission to revise the candidate test plan 190 can be limited to thetest lead person. In another arrangement, permission to revise thecandidate test plan 190 can be limited to stakeholders havingappropriate permissions and/or security levels and/or the types ofchanges made to the candidate test plan 190 by stakeholders can belimited based on stakeholder permissions and/or security levels. Changesmade by stakeholders not having appropriate permissions and/or securitylevels to make such changes can be indicated as proposed revisions. Suchpermissions and/or security levels can be established by anadministrator, such as the test lead person, in the collaborativeapplication 150 or the test plan editor 400.

To suggest a revision for the candidate test plan 190, a stakeholder canenter a user input to select a particular test case selection criterion410, 412 and enter a user input to select a control 450 to remove theparticular test case selection criterion 410, 412 and/or enter a userinput to select a control 450 to add another test case selectioncriterion (not shown). Similarly, the stakeholder can enter a user inputto select a particular test case 420, 422 and enter a user input toselect the control 450 to remove the particular test case 420, 422and/or enter a user input to select the control 450 to add another testcase (not shown). The stakeholder also can enter user inputs to changethe candidate priorities 432 assigned to the test cases 420, 422.Further, the stakeholder can edit the free-form content 440-422associated with test case selection criteria 410, 412 and/or test cases420, 422, or add free-form content 440, 442. In illustration, thestakeholder can add and/or delete text in the free-form content 440,442. Optionally, text effects, such as strikethroughs, underlining,highlighting, etc. can be automatically applied by the test plan editor400 to the free-form content 440, 442 to indicate text that is deletedand/or added to the free-form content 440, 442 by the stakeholder. Inone aspect, the test plan editor 400 can present to the stakeholder textformatting tools 460 which the stakeholder can use to apply text effectsto the free-form content 440, 442. The stakeholder can, for example,change the format of the text, the font, the size of the text, boldtext, italicize text, underline text, add strikethrough to text, and thelike.

When the stakeholder is finished proposing changes for revising thecandidate test plan 190, the stakeholder can enter a user input toselect a control 470 to accept the suggested changes. Further, thecollaborative application 150 can send a message to the test lead personindicating that changes to the candidate test plan 190 have beensuggested, and the stakeholder proposing the changes. When the test leadperson accesses the candidate test plan 190 using the test plan editor400, the test plan editor 400 can present the suggested changes in thecandidate test plan 190 and, optionally, the stakeholder who proposedthe changes. The test plan editor 400 can be configured with optionsallowing the test lead person to accept and deny the proposed changes.When the test lead person completes accepting/denying proposed changes,the collaborative application 150 can send a message to the stakeholderwho proposed such changes indicating which changes were accepted and/orwhich changes were denied. The test lead person also add or remove testcase selection criteria 410, 412 and/or test cases 420, 422 to/from thetest plan, re-prioritize the test cases, and/or add or modify thefree-form content 440, 442.

In the case that multiple stakeholders have provided suggestions forrevising the candidate test plan 190, the collaborative application 150can process such revisions and/or suggestions to automatically generatea suggested revision to the candidate test plan 190. For example, basedon input from the stakeholders, the collaborative application 150 againcan select test case selection criteria 410, 412, test cases 420, 422and candidate priorities 432 for the selected test cases 420, 422, forexample as previously described. Via the test plan editor 400, thecollaborative application 150 can present the suggested revision for thecandidate test plan 190 to a stakeholder, such as the test lead person,who can accept and/or deny changes provided in the suggested revision,further revise the candidate test plan 190 and/or accept the suggestedrevision.

In response to the candidate test plan 190 being revised, thecollaborative application 150 can update the candidate test plan 190 andsend respective messages to stakeholders participating in generation ofthe test plan that the candidate test plan 190 has been revised. Suchmessages can prompt the stakeholders to review the revised candidatetest plan 190 via the test plan editor 400 and propose any furtherrevisions to the candidate test plan 190 such stakeholders may desire.When a stakeholder is satisfied with the candidate test plan 190 aspresented, the stakeholder can select a control 480 to accept thecandidate test plan 190.

In one arrangement, responsive to each stakeholder accepting thecandidate test plan 190, the collaborative application 150 can send amessage to the test lead person indicating such acceptance. In anotherarrangement, the collaborative application 150 can send a message to thetest lead person indicating collaborative acceptance of the candidatetest plan 190 when each of the other stakeholders have accepted thecandidate test plan 190. When the test lead person is satisfied that thecandidate test plan 190 is finalized, the test lead person can enter auser input to select a control 490 in the test plan editor 400 togenerate a final test plan 192 from the candidate test plan 190. Via thetest plan editor 400, the test lead person also can provide resource andplanning information for the final test plan 192 (e.g., the number oftesters, test duration, etc.), which can be incorporated into the finaltest plan 192. Responsive to the final test plan 192 being generated,the collaborative application 150 can send a message to each of thestakeholders indicating that the test plan has been finalized. Further,the message can provide the stakeholders access to the final test plan192.

The test plan editor 400 also can be used by the test lead person and/orother stakeholders to monitor implementation of the final test plan 192.In illustration, the test plan editor 400 can present the final testplan 192 and indicate, in real time, which test cases 420, 422 have beenexecuted and which test cases 420, 422 have not yet been executed.Further, for the test cases 420, 422 that have been executed, the testplan editor 400 can indicate, in real time, whether the system haspassed or failed execution of the test cases 420, 422. For example, testcases 420, 422 that pass can be indicated with a particular color ofhighlighting or another suitable indicator, and test cases 420, 422 thatfail can be indicated with another color of highlighting or suitableindicator. Accordingly, the final test plan 192 also can serve as a testreport indicating real time progress of the test cases 420, 422 as theyare executed.

At this point it should be noted that the controls 450-452, 470-490 andtext formatting tools 460 depicted in FIG. 4 can, but need not, bepresented with the test case selection criteria 410, 412, test cases420, 422 and free-form content 440, 442 in the test plan editor 400. Forexample, such controls 450-452, 470-490 and text formatting tools 460can be presented in one or more menus (e.g., drop down menus) or in anyother suitable manner.

FIG. 5 depicts a block diagram of a processing system 500 that can beimplemented as a server 110 of FIG. 1.

The processing system 500 can include at least one processor 505 (e.g.,a central processing unit) coupled to memory elements 510 through asystem bus 515 or other suitable circuitry. As such, the processingsystem 500 can store program code within the memory elements 510. Theprocessor 505 can execute the program code accessed from the memoryelements 510 via the system bus 515. It should be appreciated that theprocessing system 500 can be implemented in the form of any systemincluding a processor and memory that is capable of performing thefunctions and/or operations described within this specification. Forexample, the processing system 500 can be implemented as a computer, aworkstation, a mobile computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, asmart phone, a personal digital assistant, a gaming device, anappliance, and so on.

The memory elements 510 can include one or more physical memory devicessuch as, for example, local memory 520 and one or more bulk storagedevices 525. Local memory 520 refers to RAM or other non-persistentmemory device(s) generally used during actual execution of the programcode. The bulk storage device(s) 525 can be implemented as a hard diskdrive (HDD), solid state drive (SSD), or other persistent data storagedevice. The processing system 500 also can include one or more cachememories (not shown) that provide temporary storage of at least someprogram code in order to reduce the number of times program code must beretrieved from the bulk storage device 525 during execution.

One or more network adapters 530 can be coupled to processing system 500to enable processing system 500 to become coupled to other systems,computer systems, client devices, remote printers, and/or remote storagedevices through intervening private or public networks. Modems, cablemodems, transceivers, and Ethernet cards are examples of different typesof network adapters 530 that can be used with processing system 500.

As pictured in FIG. 5, the memory elements 510 can store one or more ofthe components of the server 110 of FIG. 1, namely the RM application140, the QM application 142, the CM application 144, the ALM framework146, the ULD 148 and/or the collaborative application 150. Beingimplemented in the form of executable program code, these components ofthe server 110 can be executed by the processing system 500 and, assuch, can be considered part of the processing system 500. Moreover, theRM application 140, QM application 142, CM application 144, ALMframework 146, ULD 148 and collaborative application 150 are functionaldata structures that impart functionality when employed as part of theprocessing system 500 of FIG. 5.

FIG. 6 is a flow chart illustrating an example of a method 600 ofgenerating a test plan. At step 602, a list of test case selectioncriteria can be presented to each of a plurality of stakeholders. Atstep 604, via a user interface, at least one user input can be receivedfrom each of the plurality of stakeholders selecting at least one testcase selection criterion from the list of test case selection criteriaand, for each selected test case selection criterion, assigning acriterion priority. At step 606, test cases, which correspond to theselected test case selection criteria, can be automatically selected,using a processor, to include in a candidate test plan. Further, acandidate priority can be automatically assigned, using the processor,to each test case selected to be included in the candidate test plan.The processor selects the test cases to include in the candidate testplan and assigns the candidate priorities to the selected test casesbased on processing the criterion priorities assigned to the selectedtest case selection criteria by the stakeholders.

At step 608, the candidate test plan can be presented to the pluralityof stakeholders. At step 610, suggestions for revising the candidatetest plan can be received from the plurality of stakeholders. At step612, the stakeholder suggestions can be processed to automaticallygenerate a suggested revision to the candidate test plan. At step 614,the suggested revision to the candidate test plan can be presented to atleast one of the plurality of stakeholders. At step 616, a user inputfrom the at least one of the plurality of stakeholders can be receivedto finalize the candidate test plan. At step 618, responsive toreceiving the user input from the at least one of the plurality ofstakeholders to finalize the candidate test plan, a final test plan canbe generated from the candidate test plan.

For purposes of simplicity and clarity of illustration, elements shownin the figures have not necessarily been drawn to scale. For example,the dimensions of some of the elements may be exaggerated relative toother elements for clarity. Further, where considered appropriate,reference numbers are repeated among the figures to indicatecorresponding, analogous, or like features.

The present invention may be a system, a method, and/or a computerprogram product. The computer program product may include a computerreadable storage medium (or media) having computer readable programinstructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of thepresent invention.

The computer readable storage medium can be a tangible device that canretain and store instructions for use by an instruction executiondevice. The computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but isnot limited to, an electronic storage device, a magnetic storage device,an optical storage device, an electromagnetic storage device, asemiconductor storage device, or any suitable combination of theforegoing. A non-exhaustive list of more specific examples of thecomputer readable storage medium includes the following: a portablecomputer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), aread-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROMor Flash memory), a static random access memory (SRAM), a portablecompact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), a digital versatile disk (DVD),a memory stick, a floppy disk, a mechanically encoded device such aspunch-cards or raised structures in a groove having instructionsrecorded thereon, and any suitable combination of the foregoing. Acomputer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construedas being transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freelypropagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagatingthrough a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g., light pulsespassing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical signals transmittedthrough a wire.

Computer readable program instructions described herein can bedownloaded to respective computing/processing devices from a computerreadable storage medium or to an external computer or external storagedevice via a network, for example, the Internet, a local area network, awide area network and/or a wireless network. The network may comprisecopper transmission cables, optical transmission fibers, wirelesstransmission, routers, firewalls, switches, gateway computers and/oredge servers. A network adapter card or network interface in eachcomputing/processing device receives computer readable programinstructions from the network and forwards the computer readable programinstructions for storage in a computer readable storage medium withinthe respective computing/processing device.

Computer readable program instructions for carrying out operations ofthe present invention may be assembler instructions,instruction-set-architecture (ISA) instructions, machine instructions,machine dependent instructions, microcode, firmware instructions,state-setting data, or either source code or object code written in anycombination of one or more programming languages, including an objectoriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like,and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the “C”programming language or similar programming languages. The computerreadable program instructions may execute entirely on the user'scomputer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone softwarepackage, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computeror entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario,the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through anytype of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide areanetwork (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer(for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider).In some embodiments, electronic circuitry including, for example,programmable logic circuitry, field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA), orprogrammable logic arrays (PLA) may execute the computer readableprogram instructions by utilizing state information of the computerreadable program instructions to personalize the electronic circuitry,in order to perform aspects of the present invention.

Aspects of the present invention are described herein with reference toflowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of methods, apparatus(systems), and computer program products according to embodiments of theinvention. It will be understood that each block of the flowchartillustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in theflowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, can be implemented bycomputer readable program instructions.

These computer readable program instructions may be provided to aprocessor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, orother programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, suchthat the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computeror other programmable data processing apparatus, create means forimplementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or blockdiagram block or blocks. These computer readable program instructionsmay also be stored in a computer readable storage medium that can directa computer, a programmable data processing apparatus, and/or otherdevices to function in a particular manner, such that the computerreadable storage medium having instructions stored therein comprises anarticle of manufacture including instructions which implement aspects ofthe function/act specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram blockor blocks.

The computer readable program instructions may also be loaded onto acomputer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other deviceto cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer,other programmable apparatus or other device to produce a computerimplemented process, such that the instructions which execute on thecomputer, other programmable apparatus, or other device implement thefunctions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block orblocks.

The flowchart and block diagrams in the Figures illustrate thearchitecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementationsof systems, methods, and computer program products according to variousembodiments of the present invention. In this regard, each block in theflowchart or block diagrams may represent a module, segment, or portionof instructions, which comprises one or more executable instructions forimplementing the specified logical function(s). In some alternativeimplementations, the functions noted in the block may occur out of theorder noted in the figures. For example, two blocks shown in successionmay, in fact, be executed substantially concurrently, or the blocks maysometimes be executed in the reverse order, depending upon thefunctionality involved. It will also be noted that each block of theblock diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, and combinations of blocksin the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, can be implementedby special purpose hardware-based systems that perform the specifiedfunctions or acts or carry out combinations of special purpose hardwareand computer instructions.

The terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particularembodiments only and is not intended to be limiting of the invention. Asused herein, the singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the” are intended toinclude the plural forms as well, unless the context clearly indicatesotherwise. It will be further understood that the terms “includes,”“including,” “comprises,” and/or “comprising,” when used in thisdisclosure, specify the presence of stated features, integers, steps,operations, elements, and/or components, but do not preclude thepresence or addition of one or more other features, integers, steps,operations, elements, components, and/or groups thereof.

Reference throughout this disclosure to “one embodiment,” “anembodiment,” or similar language means that a particular feature,structure, or characteristic described in connection with the embodimentis included in at least one embodiment described within this disclosure.Thus, appearances of the phrases “in one embodiment,” “in anembodiment,” and similar language throughout this disclosure may, but donot necessarily, all refer to the same embodiment.

The term “plurality,” as used herein, is defined as two or more thantwo. The term “another,” as used herein, is defined as at least a secondor more. The term “coupled,” as used herein, is defined as connected,whether directly without any intervening elements or indirectly with oneor more intervening elements, unless otherwise indicated. Two elementsalso can be coupled mechanically, electrically, or communicativelylinked through a communication channel, pathway, network, or system. Theterm “and/or” as used herein refers to and encompasses any and allpossible combinations of one or more of the associated listed items. Itwill also be understood that, although the terms first, second, etc. maybe used herein to describe various elements, these elements should notbe limited by these terms, as these terms are only used to distinguishone element from another unless stated otherwise or the contextindicates otherwise.

The term “if” may be construed to mean “when” or “upon” or “in responseto determining” or “in response to detecting,” depending on the context.Similarly, the phrase “if it is determined” or “if [a stated conditionor event] is detected” may be construed to mean “upon determining” or“in response to determining” or “upon detecting [the stated condition orevent]” or “in response to detecting [the stated condition or event],”depending on the context.

The descriptions of the various embodiments of the present inventionhave been presented for purposes of illustration, but are not intendedto be exhaustive or limited to the embodiments disclosed. Manymodifications and variations will be apparent to those of ordinary skillin the art without departing from the scope and spirit of the describedembodiments. The terminology used herein was chosen to best explain theprinciples of the embodiments, the practical application or technicalimprovement over technologies found in the marketplace, or to enableothers of ordinary skill in the art to understand the embodimentsdisclosed herein.

1-7. (canceled)
 8. A system, comprising: a processor programmed to initiate executable operations comprising: presenting to each of a plurality of stakeholders a list of test case selection criteria; receiving from each of the plurality of stakeholders, via a user interface, at least one user input selecting at least one test case selection criterion from the list of test case selection criteria and, for each selected test case selection criterion, assigning a criterion priority; and automatically selecting test cases, which correspond to the selected test case selection criteria, to include in a candidate test plan and automatically assigning a candidate priority to each test case selected to be included in the candidate test plan, wherein the test cases are selected to include in the candidate test plan and the candidate priorities are assigned to the selected test cases based on processing the criterion priorities assigned to the selected test case selection criteria by the stakeholders.
 9. The system of claim 8, the executable operations further comprising: presenting the candidate test plan to the plurality of stakeholders; receiving from the plurality of stakeholders suggestions for revising the candidate test plan; processing the stakeholder suggestions to automatically generate a suggested revision to the candidate test plan; and presenting the suggested revision to the candidate test plan to at least one of the plurality of stakeholders.
 10. The system of claim 8, the executable operations further comprising: receiving from at least a first of the plurality of stakeholders at least one suggested change for revising the candidate test plan; and receiving from at least a second of the plurality of stakeholders a user input accepting or denying the suggested change.
 11. The system of claim 8, the executable operations further comprising: receiving a user input from at least one of the plurality of stakeholders to finalize the candidate test plan; and responsive to receiving the user input from the at least one of the plurality of stakeholders to finalize the candidate test plan, generating a final test plan from the candidate test plan.
 12. The system of claim 11, the executable operations further comprising: receiving a user input from the at least one of the stakeholders providing resource or planning information for the final test plan; and incorporating the resource or planning information into the final test plan.
 13. The system of claim 11, the executable operations further comprising: presenting the final test plan to at least one of the plurality of stakeholders and indicating in the final test plan, in real time, which of the test cases have been executed by a second system being tested using the final test plan.
 14. The system of claim 13, the executable operations further comprising: indicating in the final test plan, in real time, whether the second system being tested using the final test plan has passed or failed execution of the test cases that have been executed.
 15. A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program code stored thereon, the program code executable by a processor to perform a method comprising: presenting, by the processor, to each of a plurality of stakeholders a list of test case selection criteria; receiving, by the processor, from each of the plurality of stakeholders, via a user interface, at least one user input selecting at least one test case selection criterion from the list of test case selection criteria and, for each selected test case selection criterion, assigning a criterion priority; and automatically selecting, by the processor, test cases, which correspond to the selected test case selection criteria, to include in a candidate test plan and automatically assigning, by the processor, a candidate priority to each test case selected to be included in the candidate test plan, wherein the processor selects the test cases to include in the candidate test plan and assigns the candidate priorities to the selected test cases based on processing the criterion priorities assigned to the selected test case selection criteria by the stakeholders.
 16. The computer program product of claim 15, the method further comprising: presenting the candidate test plan to the plurality of stakeholders; receiving from the plurality of stakeholders suggestions for revising the candidate test plan; processing the stakeholder suggestions to automatically generate a suggested revision to the candidate test plan; and presenting the suggested revision to the candidate test plan to at least one of the plurality of stakeholders.
 17. The computer program product of claim 15, the method further comprising: receiving from at least a first of the plurality of stakeholders at least one suggested change for revising the candidate test plan; and receiving from at least a second of the plurality of stakeholders a user input accepting or denying the suggested change.
 18. The computer program product of claim 15, the method further comprising: receiving a user input from at least one of the plurality of stakeholders to finalize the candidate test plan; and responsive to receiving the user input from the at least one of the plurality of stakeholders to finalize the candidate test plan, generating a final test plan from the candidate test plan.
 19. The computer program product of claim 18, the method further comprising: receiving a user input from the at least one of the stakeholders providing resource or planning information for the final test plan; and incorporating the resource or planning information into the final test plan.
 20. The computer program product of claim 18, the method further comprising: presenting the final test plan to the at least one of the plurality of stakeholders and indicating in the final test plan, in real time, which of the test cases have been executed by a system being tested using the final test plan.
 21. The computer program product of claim 20, the method further comprising: indicating in the final test plan, in real time, whether the system being tested using the final test plan has passed or failed execution of the test cases that have been executed. 